1. Field of Invention
This invention is generally directed to dispensers for dispensing sheet-like articles from a support casing and more specifically to a compact business card dispenser of a size to be conveniently carried in a person's coat, shirt or pants pocket.
2. Discussion of Prior Art
Business cards are an essential means of communication in today's business and social environments making it necessary for people to carry a plurality of cards to distribute when necessary. Business cards are easily damaged when carried loosely in a wallet, purse or pocket by friction, bending or discoloration. Damaged cards not only portray a person presenting them as unprofessional, but also run the risk of not working with electronic business card scanning equipment. In the past, there have been numerous attempts to provide card carriers and dispensers which serve to house a plurality of cards for dispensing when necessary. Many such prior art dispensers have not proven to be reliable or effective for continuously dispensing a single article at a time from the housing or case in which the cards are stored. The dispenser design in many cases was too complicated to justify manufacturing costs, especially in cases where flanges, grooves, fasteners and complex shaped parts, or simply too many parts were used. In other cases, the size of the dispenser was necessarily enlarged to accommodate an ejector mechanism and/or a card support platform. Many prior art dispensers were hard to refill and/or assemble. In some cases, the cards housed in the dispenser were exposed to the elements making them prone to damage. Also, springs used in prior art dispensers were too complicated, requiring separate fastening devices, or were too hard to assemble into the case. The dispenser was in most cases enlarged in order to make room for operation of springs. Ejector designs have proven to be particularly ineffective, especially in dispensers incorporating a flange or shoulder that engages the rear of the card to eject it. Examples of such related prior art are discussed below:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,308,989 to Alltop et al. (1967) discloses a business card dispenser having a reciprocating card ejector means. The latter is an example of ineffective prior art in business card dispensers. The disadvantages of Alltop's card dispenser design are:
a) Many parts are needed to produce the dispenser, making it impractical for manufacturing. PA0 b) Refilling the dispenser is a confusing process, requiring many steps. PA0 c) The size of the case is enlarged to accommodate an ejector and a spring mechanism. PA0 d) The ejector mechanism is particularly ineffective in dispensing cards because it employs the use of a flange that is supposed to engage the rear of the top most card in a stack and eject it when the ejector is moved forward. This method is very ineffective because of the nature of business card materials. Cards are flexible and easy to tear, as well as compressible. If the ejector button is pressed too hard, more than one card can be engaged at the same time. Also, if pushed too hard, the flange can tear a notch in the rear of the card, causing the ejector mechanism to get stuck and possibly causing the card to get damaged. PA0 e) The dispenser does not accommodate cards of different thickness for single dispensing. PA0 a) To eject a card, one has to use his or her thumb to apply direct pressure upon the card through an opening in the top cover. In dry weather, the coefficient of friction between the user's thumb and the card can be too low thereby not providing enough force to push out a card. Also, if the user's hands are dirty or wet, the card will be smudged giving the user an unprofessional image, or rendering it incompatible with business card scanners widely used in today's businesses. PA0 b) Another problem with this design is that refilling is a complex procedure requiring several steps. PA0 a) An enlarged case is necessary to accommodate the ejector and card support platform. PA0 b) The extensive use of flanges and grooves to guide the card platform and the top cover make it relatively expensive to manufacture this dispenser. PA0 c) The ejector mechanism used is not unlike that discussed in section (d) of U.S. Pat. No. 3,308,989 to Alltop et al. In an improvement to Parker's own design, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,887,739 to Parker (1989), the ejector mechanism is modified to include rubber bands in close proximity to the flange to help engage the card better. The latter design is not effective because the rubber bands are situated too far to the rear of the card, and also don't have a large enough surface area to engage a card. This makes it easier to bend the card if the front of the card is slightly caught at the slot. PA0 d) A user has no feedback or control over how much frictional force is applied when ejecting a card, since the ejector button is positioned on the side of the dispenser. This is especially a problem when there are too few cards remaining in the stack, and the spring-loaded platform is close to its maximum height.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,790,435 to Trusty (1988) discloses a card dispenser whereby the card to be dispensed is exposed via a window opening in the top cover. This dispenser is ineffective for several reasons:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,452,793 to Dimeo et al. (1995) discloses a business card case. The problems with Dimeo's design are that it requires both hands to present a card, making it impractical. Also, the case can be accidentally opened if snagged by loose threads in pockets, or by mishandling, causing the enclosed cards to spill out.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,792,058 to Parker (1988) discloses a Business Card Dispenser. Several disadvantages noted with Parker's design are: